“I'm stabbing in the dark, I admit, but let me give it a shot. Causal infinity implies that there is no beginning and no end. I assert the necessity of a beginning on the grounds that it's necessary to existence. If there is no beginning, then there is existence with an infinite amount of time before this moment. (I'm going to start playing with numbers now...it shouldn't be hard to find my fallacy...but I don't know what it is, yet) Call that time P minus infinity. In order for P to be the present, as it was defined, an infinite amount of time has to have already passed. Since it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to ever pass, there must have been a beginning to the universe. Also it's not entirely causal, because there are random events, quantum fluctuations, but that's not really important.”

Dwight E. Coats March 14 2004

Response:

The problem with your position is that you are assuming “P” is an end-in-itself, thereby establish the distinction with infinity and ground for beginning and end. However, the conception of causal infinity contends that “P” is infinite, and therefore there is no result from “P” (infinity) minus infinity. The challenge you face is more reasonably demonstrating that “P” is not infinite. Arguments supporting the infinity of “P” or any other conscious entity can be viewed at supporting arguments.

Supplementary comment:

Random events and quantum fluctuations, being conscious phenomenon, are subject to causality no matter how subtle.

22. Entry:

“Since all things animate or inanimate appear as an infinite cosmos only as a virtual reality on our mind screen, any reckoning or conjectures would be through a phantom called mind only. What therefore matters is only ‘to whom’ all such appearances or disappearances rather than what they are. While science explores objective knowledge, philosophy deals with the subjective element in trying to find a deeper meaning for our existence. In doing so, to say that by changing the individual everything else changes is correct as our actions obscured by the notional mind always corrupts, distorts, or disturbs causing pollution, noise, heat and so on. On the other hand if things around us change it may or may not always change the individual as it depends upon the level of ignorance due to one's notions by which we judge, compare, interpret, or extrapolate, always. For the awakened person, everything is like an illusion only and changing relationships wouldn't matter at all. Let us say the ignorant are in state zero and the enlightened are in state 1. Due to ignorance (not knowing or not having encountered the true state of ourselves) we keep adding zero after zero to the right side of one thus making the reality of only one, to appear as many by the perceptions and processing by the mind which is always divisive. 1 divided by 0 = infinity and the cosmos thus appears! For the wise and enlightened 1 always remain one and they reject the false as the false in a watchful state of constant awareness and add zero to the left of 1 1,01,001,0001,... = 1 always. Like a quantum jump they may choose to take part in the cosmic play or dance but they always manage to remain unaffected, come what may! To reach such a level of awareness starting from a deep state of ignorance requires contemplation hoping to remove layers of ignorance in an effort to recapture one's own childhood state of pure innocence, fearlessness, spontaneity, and lovability. In the process it is inevitable that we transcend barriers like ‘I’ ‘Me’ and come to realize that qualitatively all are no different from each other. Going one step further, all forms of life will look the same in a universal consciousness. Even inanimate things can be perceived in the same manner if only one is at the source of all existence. Connectedness and mutual influencing are just notions due to our being ignorant of what ‘is’.”

R. Rangan May 19 2004

Response:

Your notions of “state 1”, “universal consciousness”, “only one”, and “source of all existence” mean that, at least according to your position, there is an oneness or thing-in-itself as existence. However, this position from our comparative and (apparently) incomplete perspective is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitum (i.e. causal infinity).

If you refer to “the childhood state of pure innocence, fearlessness, spontaneity, and lovability”, then we require a more reasonable explanation for both your use of the term “pure”, and why the childhood state necessarily equates to an oneness of existence.

If you refer to the state of rapture (e.g. Entry 481 from Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1), then we require a more reasonable explanation for how your interpretation of your experience of rapture, or anyone else’s, proves an oneness of existence.

23. Entry:

“The premise ‘we exist’ is similar to the quote ‘I think therefore I am’ but does a tree not exist without thought? According to nature knowing and existing are two different states of being. The former is based upon the mind and the latter upon reality. A tree neither knows nor does not know that it is alive but exists never the less and performs intelligent functions. The characteristic of thought is not necessary for existance and the absent of thought does not exclude intelligence and the difference is the ability to reason. To state that ‘ We exist ‘is to state the existance of the mind but do we not exist without our ability to reason? To claim that we are ‘human beings distinguishable from other life forms’ is again a result of the mind as according to science we are all genetically alike. Made from D.N.A., matter, and energy there are no differences between us and other life forms except our ability to reason. However we can not claim to know how different our responses are compared to other life forms or whether they have the ability to reason in different ways. Animals certainly make decisions based upon impulses and everyone with a pet knows they have personality. We can reason and express our reasons but we can not know if we are right or not. Our reasoning may be no more correct then a baby's ramblings or no more false then a bird's song. The first basis of the proposition is easily disputed by a lack of knowledge which is why it must be founded upon partial knowledge. This being the case, however, the first premise automatically disclaims the second. We can not debate infinity by excluding infinate knowledge as the two are inseparable. If we claim there is a casual infinity we are implying intelligence of some form as there would be no cause if not for some intelligence to perpetuate some cause. Whole knowledge can not be excluded as to do so automatically disproves any proposition that is determined by a formula of partial knowledge when we are to debate infinity. It is unreasonable to connect the first premise ‘We are human beings’ with the second ‘apart of a causal infinity’ ultimately death refutes the possibility. Human beings do not exist in any form after death and infinity is beyond form and time. No form is infinite and so to claim that cause can be infinite is purely speculative. By human beings not being infinite and therefore reason being unable to survive the death of the mind then infinity is nothing but a continuation of non-existance. Infinity is of nothing but space and our resoning can not attempt to know if it is causal or spontaneous or if it is changeless or ever changing. We would then be something out of nothing, or at lest out of the unkown space of infinity as it is like death, non-existance. Without this space there would be no existance nor form or reason as there would be no sanity for human beings without rest in that void. In sleep form becomes an unconscious memory and we exist as nothing but a conscious force. While awake we claim the conscious force to be true and the unconscious force to be false but sleep proves that we do not know the difference between the two states. The variance between existance and reasoning and between cause and infinity are nothing but conclusions based upon partial knowledge which by nature are false. No attempt at reason could ever explain these subjects and any attempt to do so is already futile. A more accurate proposition would be; We are each a force capable of being both conscious and unconscious who are both alive within form and without and that all occurs in infinite space allowing for both manifestation and non-existance.”

Brenda Fraser November 6 2004

Response:

Though the first part of the competition proposition, “we are [more reasonably] human beings” is asserted as “partial” (or limited or incomplete) knowledge, it does not follow as you contend that partial knowledge is inconsistent with the notion of infinity (or the latter half of the competition proposition, “who are part of the causal infinity of existence”.) Viz., partial or incomplete knowledge implies that there is no complete end to the knowledge which is consistent with infinity (or a never ending process). So the first part of the proposition, being limited in nature, does not exclude infinite knowledge, as you contend, and in fact it is infinite (in terms of being incomplete), thereby as mentioned is consistent with the notion of (causal) infinity.

Moreover, by the competition proposition being asserted as limited, incomplete knowledge, it leaves open the possibility for “whole knowledge” or anything else.

Further, your contention that “death” proves the finite nature of human beings, thus the inconsistency between humanity and the notion of causal infinity, assumes that death is final or complete, or the endpoint of human beings, when for instance, from a biological standpoint, the human body upon death is merely decomposed into other forms. If you disagree, we request that you more reasonably prove that death is a complete end to human life in all possible senses.

Furthermore, we agree that “no attempt at reason could ever [completely] explain these subjects” [i.e. existence, reason, cause, and infinity], but the same argument could made for any other subject, and therefore, the argument is cancelled out.

Finally, in terms of your so-called “more accurate proposition”,

We are each a force capable of being both conscious and unconscious who are both alive within form and without and that all occurs in infinite space allowing for both manifestation and non-existance,

Other issue:

The problem with your contention that knowing is based upon the mind and existing based upon reality, is that you overlook that since we cannot apparently get outside of our minds and know that we are, everything we know including the notion of existing are fundamentally from our minds.

24. Entry:

“Epoches and the reference frames. 1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth is absolute. 2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun is absolute. 3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far stars is absolute. 4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute. 5. But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor. This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease and, hence, approximately over a period of 20 billions years will reach T=0K. ======================== In the beginning there was Vacuum: T=0K. ================================ How the God created our terrestrial world? ================ The God is unknown materialistic thing. At first He took ‘clay’ and made a figure of a man and only after He gave him a “soul”. How can we understand this scientific? ============== 1. The “clay” is a proton. 2. The ‘soul’ is a quantum of light / electron. 3. Interaction between proton and electron is created simplest atom - atom of hydrogen. 4. And atom is alive design. The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes. 5. After is created a complex atom. 6. The evolution is continuing. 7. And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man. =============== But maybe I have a mistake. Maybe God has a soul for the ‘clay – proton’ in the beginning.”

socratus November 18 2006

Response:

We acknowledge that if you or anyone else can more reasonably demonstrate absoluteness, you will contradict and overcome Proposition 2 and the concept of causal infinity.

In your entry you refer to “absolute” four times, but merely say it is “considered” or “proved”. You must go further, and for example, show how Copernicus (more reasonably) proves that reference frame connected with the Sun is absolute.

Moreover, in your entry you refer to “God”, which is equated to absoluteness, but you provide no explanation (more reasonably or not) of the existence of God, except by assuming God’s existence. Again as with any other claimed absolute, you must more reasonably demonstrate the (absolute) existence of God.

25. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 24

"What is the first law of Universe?

============

Now it is consider that Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.

============

1.

Newton was a clever man therefore when he discovered his 'law of gravitation' he quickly understood that soon or later the all matter in the Universe had to gather in the 'singular point'.
And because this effect does not happen in the Nature, Newton, being very religius man, thought that only God's power did not give the matter to gather in a 'singular point'.

2.

And then atheistic time came.

They decided:

As God does not exist, so the all matter in Universe must gather in a 'singular point'.

================

I don't agree that Newton/Einstein's laws of gravitation are the first laws of Universe.

Why?

1.

Take simple atom: proton and electron, (small distances). Nobody interests in gravitation interaction between proton and electron. There is not any theory about gravitation interaction between proton and electron. Everybody interests only in electrical (nuclear) interaction between them.

It means that Newton/Einstein's laws of gravitation are local and limited.

This law in the small (nuclear) distance does not work.

2.

Take Universe (cosmic distances).

There is not theory about gravitation interaction between galaxy A. and galaxy Z. We don,t need it.

Why? For example:

Let's imagine of all apple-trees on our Earth as a galaxy, and apples as stars.
Nobody will interest in the interaction between an apple-tree in New York (galaxy A.) and an apple-tree (cherry-tree) in Varanasi (galaxy Z.).

It means that Newton/Einstein's laws of gravitation are local and limited.

This law in the big cosmic distance does not work.

3.

Conclusion.

Newton/Einstein's laws of gravitation cannot be 'The first law of Universe.'

================

What can be the first law of Universe?

1.

All galaxyies (gravitation fields) exist in Vacuum (T=0K). Therefore Vacuum can be 'The first law of Universe.'

Then we must ask questions:

'How is it possible to break homogeneous and symmetric Vacuum: T=0K ?',and 'how in Vacuum could gravitation fields be created?', and 'How in Vacuum can the process of star formation begin?'

===================

If somebody doubt that from cold Vacuum T=0K the hot stars can be created, please, remember that the Second law of thermodynamics does not forbid this possibility.

================

================

To know something about the 'God' is necessary to know (at first) only one absolute quantity.
It is the Infinity/ Eternity: T=0K.

Infinity: a symbol or reality. 1. Everyone knows, that absolute temperature T=0K cannot be reached. We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
2. Everyone knows, that nobody can reach absolute speed of quantum of light c=1. We can only indefinitely come nearer to her.
3. But everyone also knows, that only quantum of light goes with absolute speed c=1.
It is the fact, it is a reality.
Question:
Unless can this absolute movement c=1 occur in relative reference frame ?
Answer:
No.!
The absolute movement can occur only in absolute frame of reference.
But only one absolute frame of reference is known T=0K (which it is impossible to reach).
And only in her quantum of light can move with the absolute speed: c=1. And it is also reality.
So, what can tell quantum of light about his travel in the Infinity, parallel world?

It is the reason I wrote that it is possible only from two absolute quantities:
1. T=0K.
2. c=1.

to construct the theory of physics, of existence, of religion.

====================

Many physicists understand, that the physics is first of all Vacuum.
And consequently they build various models of Vacuum.

Certainly, interested persons can construct 27, 53, 77 - dimensional space model of Vacuum.

And why not 123 - dimensional space model?

And why not 321 ….?

But it is a 'bad infinity'.

The Vacuum is characterized by one simple physical characteristic? = 0?.

Question.

"Which geometrical and physical properties of the particles in ? = 0?.?"

It is very important to answer on this question.

The philosophy of science begins from this question.

The physics begins from this question.

The religion begins from this question.

The origin of Existence begins from this question.

==========================="

Socratus. November 29 2006

Response:

Your entry raises some fundamental issues about the origin of existence. The key issue we see is whether or not existence begins from a state of nothingness ("ex nihlio") or a state of something from something else ad infinitum (infinity).

Based on the conception of vacuum, you side with a state of nothingness, but paradoxically in a quantum or superposition state with geometrical and physical properties.
It is unclear to us how a fundamental state of nothingness can have properties without succumbing to contradiction. So it follows to us that you must believe in something (as opposed to nothing (or vacuum state)). From here, you could attach to the notion of "God"--or state of oneness--another form of ex nihlio, because "God" comes from nothing, or to the notion of casual infinity which is based on a perpetual casual state with no end or beginning.

From our unavoidable human perspective, defined by comparison and incompleteness, we assert that something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing. Therefore, your claim that "T=0K" (or Energy=0) as the absolute origin of existence does not more reasonably stand.
To elaborate our position further, we quote a paragraph from our response to Entry 287 (Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1):

... in our view, Sartre’s existentialist conception of consciousness falls short of an explanation of how we can truly know who we are, because it does not follow how who we are, as conscious entity, can know who we are through who we are or itself. (i.e. since all we can know is what we know, and who we are is our consciousness according to Sartre, it follows that we cannot get outside of what we know or our consciousness to know who we are, and therefore, it appears we could only know who we are in a limited sense.) Also, it does not follow how who we are can be created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) when the notion of "creation" imputes causality or something out of something else. (i.e. what is the basis for the creation of who we are, if there is no basis for it? It appears that you are saying that there is no creation of who we are, because we ourselves are in a state of eternal existence. Though as we stated in the response to Entry 287, the notion of something coming from something else (causality) appears to be more reasonable than the notion of something coming from nothing (absoluteness), because of the apparent interactive nature of things including our thoughts and our own existence. Though even if our consciousness could more reasonably come from nothing, we would still face the problem of how we could truly know who we are.

Entries 16-20 Entries 26-29